866 – Defining politics: the political theatre of epistemology

 Comments Off on 866 – Defining politics: the political theatre of epistemology
Jun 262024
 


When it comes to politics, you can never be sure whether to laugh or cry. In a field where the cardinal rule is ‘define or be defined’, defining politics itself can be elusive.

Politics is commonly (though correctly) associated with the state and government. But politics is also played outside of the government arena, as in office politics, business politics, and social politics involving competitions for social status.

Interestingly, most dictionaries do not describe what makes ‘political’ activity distinct from other forms of human activities without referring to state or government.

One distinctive attribute of politics suggests that when something becomes ‘political’ it means that the game is no longer being played on a level playing field. But the unspoken truth about the distinctive nature of politics is that it has become a socially acceptable means of acquiring the unearned. Worse, when it comes to governments, actions otherwise considered unconscionable or criminal are broadly tolerated if carried out for political reasons.

Politics has always operated in a political theatre of epistemology – a war of words calculated to win the support of the public. By controlling populations through the creation of fake definitions, politicians can pursue their real agendas in a manner unseen by most.

No issue could demonstrate the political war of definitions better than the Covid ‘vaccine-bioweapon-gene therapy-plandemic’. Several American states have launched civil actions against Pfizer, based on the fact that Pfizer illegally re-defined terms like ‘vaccine,’ ‘adverse event,’ ‘virus,’ ‘vaccination,’ and ‘infection’ to mean things that those words and terms do not mean. The significance of this is that for vaccine manufacturers using the contrived definitions, immunity from liability will no longer apply.

Thankfully, the war of words is also fought with valid definitions that correspond to the facts. These developments appear to represent a significant step in the Right direction because when it comes to the vaccine industry, it’s the defining issue that’s Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

865 – Turning Right—into the Red wave

 1 Response »
Jun 192024
 


“Is Europe turning far right?” That question is being asked by many commentators both in social media and in the mainstream media itself. Concluding that the the recent results in the European Union parliamentary elections represent a “conservative Red wave and a move to the Right,” expectations are high that the tide of tyranny is finally reaching an end.

Aside from the inconvenient fact that conservatism is associated with the color blue, and not red, one can never be certain what values most people associate with the Right. The same uncertainty presents itself regarding the association of conservatives, libertarians and Objectivists with the Right. One of the problems with the terms Left and Right is that to most people, these terms are not associated with definitive ideas but simply represent political opposition.

It’s safe to say that virtually all those on the Left are globalists, even if they are unaware of that term. They idealize a ‘nation-less’ world as some kind of utopia, utterly oblivious to the horrifying reality of that idea. Disappointingly (and surprising to some), conservatives, libertarians, and even Objectivists have many representatives and factions promulgating Leftist objectives and ideals, particularly globalism and an end to the sovereignty of nations.

Consequently, you can never be sure whether any of these individuals and groups are on the Left or Right until you understand their specific views and policies as measured against the understood and correct principles of each polarity.

‘Red’ or ‘Blue,’ whether that wave is truly moving in the Right direction is a question that can only be resolved when the wave reaches the shore of national governance.

When the Left constantly berates anything Right as being ‘far,’ ‘extreme,’ or whatever, the objective is to destroy the very concept of being Right. To the extent that they can get enough people to believe that being Just Right is simply not possible, the Left will continue to win the information war even in the midst of a ‘Red wave.’

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

864 – The Right WING—flying in every direction

 Comments Off on 864 – The Right WING—flying in every direction
Jun 122024
 


The belief that Left and Right have become useless labels has been utterly destructive to those on the Right.

Expressing a recognition that conservatives and liberals have become a ‘uni-party,’ many on the Right have falsely operated on the assumption that, for example, Republicans represent the Right and Democrats represent the Left. The sad fact is that, just as ‘Republicans in name only’ (RINOs) are not Republicans, so too many on the right ‘wing’ are ‘Right in name only.’ Or in other words, their ideologies are Left.

How did this misconception of Left and Right arise?

That Republicans and Democrats sit in ‘opposition’ to each other leads most to believe that the split between them is ideological – Left versus Right. But the real ‘split’ is about power, not about ideology. (This principle also applies to parliamentary governments, where there is an ‘official opposition’ yet with little or no ideological difference to the ruling party.) Continue reading »

858 – Conservatism!—God help us!

 1 Response »
May 012024
 


Conservatism is being promoted as a Christian political philosophy that should be applied to the governing of a country. That, at least, was the expressed opinion of David Haskell (Wilfred Laurier University) during his recent debate with Bruce Pardy (Queen’s Law).

Sponsored by Augustine College and First Freedoms Foundation, the 2024 Rand Debate (named after Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand), was based on the following resolution: “Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty.”

In addition to the resolution itself being based on a contradiction (pitting “virtue” against “liberty” when in fact they are inseparable), the debate serves as an ideal exhibit of what we have been referring to as the “political dyslexia” persistently surrounding political debates and discussions.

Most disturbing is the Christian ‘virtue signaling’ now literally being advocated as a political response to the politics of WOKE virtue signaling.

David Haskell argues that through the power of the state, “conservatism as guided by the Judeo-Christian tradition is going to make choices you don’t agree with, especially if you’re not a religious believer.” Bruce Pardy, in response, notes that “this is why so many progressives think that conservatives are dangerous.”

Given Haskell’s subjective definitions of words like ‘liberal’, ‘virtue’, ‘equality’, ‘utilitarian’, and many others including ‘conservatism’ itself, Haskell and Pardy could never have arrived at anything resembling agreement. This creates a deep and unnecessary divide between those fighting for ‘liberty’ and those fighting for ‘conservatism’ in their mutual war against ‘Wokeism.’

Until more people who regard themselves as ‘conservatives’ begin to use definitions that are Just Right, their proposed solutions for defeating the WOKE ideology, let alone for achieving freedom, will always be just wrong and ineffective.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

857 – Political dyslexia—causes and cures

 Comments Off on 857 – Political dyslexia—causes and cures
Apr 242024
 


The disdain and revulsion that many people have developed for politics is understandable. But a growing danger emanating from this attitude is the inability to conceive of any political solutions to our freedom dilemma, and to withdraw from the political process entirely.

This is particularly tragic for those on the political Right – the polarity of individualism, freedom, and capitalism – because most people who believe in these values have demonstrated little interest in politics. And to the extent that they do participate in the political process, they more often than not continue to support and vote for parties and candidates opposed to their values.

Most voters are so confused about politics that they still cannot tell Left from Right, a condition perhaps best described as political dyslexia.

In fact, the prevailing myth is that there is no difference between Left and Right, based on the mistaken assumption that political parties like Canada’s Conservative Party and America’s Republican Party are on the ‘Right’ when they are actually as Leftist as their liberal and democratic counterparts.

Consider the political awakening of Rosanne Barr who, in a recent discussion with Russell Brand, described her 2012 candidacy for president as leader of the Green Party as “socialist.” Remarkably, she associated “freedom of speech, civil rights, self improvement through education, and individual rights” with socialism and the Left. Continue reading »

856 – ATHEISNT—Fallacies And Realities About Atheists

 Comments Off on 856 – ATHEISNT—Fallacies And Realities About Atheists
Apr 172024
 


Atheist Richard Dawkins recently sparked a controversy that challenges fundamental assumptions about both atheism and faith-based belief. Referring to himself as a “cultural Christian” he has been criticized by both atheists and religious believers alike.

Unfortunately, too many self-described atheists are being unfairly criticized and maligned by those who, on the one side, equate atheism with an absence of morality, while on the other equate the sharing of some religious beliefs with unprincipled atheism.

One dictionary we consulted incorrectly defines ‘atheism’ as “the belief that there is no god.” The problem with this definition is that atheism is not a ‘belief’ system at all. Nor is atheism a philosophy or code of morality. It is merely the non-acceptance or a rejection of the concept of a literal supernatural ‘deity’ – nothing else. Atheism does not require ‘belief’ as its base of justification. Atheism is primarily a response to theism, which does rely on ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’

The fact that many atheists abide by a moral code that mirrors that associated with Christianity is less about atheists borrowing from Christian values than it is about Christians and atheists alike borrowing values from other shared philosophical sources. This includes many writers and philosophers throughout history setting out the principles of Western culture over time – from the early Greeks through the Age of Enlightenment and to the present day.

Those who blame atheism as being the source of our current tyrannical zeitgeist – or who blame the Soviet Union’s past tyrannical history on its ‘officially atheist status’ are arguing a contradiction. One cannot judge any individual or national actions on what is ‘not’ believed and practiced but on what ‘is’ believed and practiced. In both cases, the cause of the tyranny was (and is) the ideology of collectivism.

Today’s WOKE ideology is merely the latest label given to yesterday’s Marxist ideology – and religious affiliation or lack thereof has little to do with the support of such ideologies. The same principle holds true for freedom.

Whether atheist or religious, if one accepts and respects the principles of individualism, individual rights and freedom, then it is possible for people of every belief and non-belief to share the ideals and blessings of a society that’s Just Right, with the understanding that freedom of religion also includes the right to be free from religion.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

855 – Do you mind?—thinking about thinking

 Comments Off on 855 – Do you mind?—thinking about thinking
Apr 102024
 


There has recently been a growing concern and much discussion about why so many people are still not awake, but just remain WOKE in the face of a pending civilizational collapse. “The WOKE mind virus is the greatest existential threat faced by humanity,” concludes Gad Saad, and Elon Musk apparently shares his alarm.

Among other causes cited for this sad state of affairs are the inability to have an inner monologue, the effect of the Covid spike protein, fear mongering, bacteria, chronic infection, the fake news media, intelligence guided by irrational bias, and of course the WOKE ideology, to name but a few.

Missing from most of the discussions is the ‘means’ by which people actually think: through the use of concepts and language. Because the human mind is essentially ‘programmable,’ and because words and concepts are the ‘software’ on which each mind functions, humans in the exercise of free will have the capacity and choice to think and behave either rationally or irrationally.

An irrational concept is one that does not conform to reality or reason. And significantly, irrational concepts can be held by highly intelligent people. How is this possible? Continue reading »

 Older Entries